Discussion in 'Firewood, Heating and Wood Burning Equipment' started by Josh36, Jan 18, 2017.
You must be referring to the SpaceHawk100 © ?
Get it straight mister...it's Home Depot cardboard!
A number of years ago, I posted some pics of my Vogelzang 2500 wood furnace. My furnace is in the basement (ground level here). I bring the wood straight in and pile it close to the furnace. The guy that built this house, did it with the idea of putting in a wood furnace, so all that we had to do was to finish the intended project. The furnace has two heat ducts on the top and it was easy to attach them into the existing duct work for the whole house. We burn LOTS of wood to keep our 2300 sqft., two-story house heated. Our propane has kicked on four or five times for the whole winter.
I decided to look into a replacement, after this one quits serving. At the time last year that I was looking, Volgelzang had quit with the 2500, due to epa rules. Now, I noticed that they are again selling them, only with epa approval. I just wonder if the reconfiguration will make them a bit more efficient and cut down my wood usage a bit? I am real satisfied with the furnace, but could always use a bit more efficiency.
Isn't the Vogelzang 2500 the same thing as a Hotblast?
They are definitely similar, but the Hotblasts that I have looked at, seem like they are not built as well as the Norsman that I have. They look pretty cheap, to me.
So far all the el-cheapo epa wood furnaces have been a disaster. The Tundra II is the cheapest one that seems to work.
That's y I went with the englander. Its modeled after a decent stove and has actually secondary burn tubes.
I was looking at the hotblast online and it seems like they just allow air to enter into the top of the fire box and that's the secondary burn.
The ashley/clayton wood furnace looks a lot like the tundra but it's a manual control unlike the tundra. I read a lot of things about it saying it doesn't work that great.
Separate names with a comma.